From Necessary Entity to Christian God.

[Gonnagle]

Well, I think the first thing we could say is that they'd be a typical atheist, not a typical Atheist.

Dear Prof,

Fair enough, enjoy the rest of your day, I am off out to enjoy that rare phenomenon, Glesga sunshine

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you haven't explained it at all. All you've done is make some logically incoherent assertions about it that would make it indistinguishable from a brute fact.

Err... space-time for one.

You bang on about logical incoherence and then say that spacetime is composed of points and the whole of spacetime is at each point......in time.e!!!

The problem is wanting spacetime to be both composed AND a singular entity.

I think you need to clear a mess here and get what you are trying to say in some kind of order.

In any case, an entity which is singular and is without parts or components was proposed by philosophers centuries ago.

[Dicky Underpants]

And now I am thinking ( it hurts Doctor ) is this a problem with the fundamental Atheist. example, they read the Bible like some fact checking book.

Gonnagle.

Hello Gonners,

I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'fundamental Atheist', but if it's what I think, I'd agree with the Prof "There certainly aren't any on here." The atheists I find on here are quite able to distinguish between poetic narrative, philosophical meditation and supposed and real history (Yes, the Bible does contain some of that, since the text has been corroborated by archaelogy). The greater part of the Bible's 'history' is probably fabricated though, for reasons I won't go into here.
I take issue with the Prof over the question of Myth, though, since he seems to take the word as simply meaning 'something untrue'. I accept, along with Karen Armstrong, that myth can sometimes impart deeper truths than any literal surface reading. But even this presents problems (perhaps we need a completely new thread on this). Let me take one obvious example: Genesis chapter 1 and the "Creation Days".  Biblical literalists take these as being 24 days as per now. Now the style of the chapter is quite poetic, which might lead thinking Christians and atheists to speculate that the original writer never intended the word "Day" to be taken literally.

That's where the problem starts. We can't possibly know for sure what was in the original writer's head at the time. However, scholars have long identified this writer as the same old bore who wrote Leviticus (The Priestly writer), and this chap was absolutely obsessed with precise time intervals, hours, days and years, and much more anally retentive stuff besides. So perhaps he did mean the word  "Day" to be taken literally here. He was reputedly of course 'inspired by God', and if so, he was wrong

Back to the Necessary Entity - has it become  Christ yet?

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes. As I have pointed out there is no context for it to stumble blindly in, no laws of nature. If there were, those would be be the necessary entity.
You should have also worked out that abstract necessities do not bring anything into being.

You are agreeing that the pain-filled aeons of evolution are all adumbrated in the original 'ontological level'? If I could ever believe that were so, then I would become an anti-theist again (I was one for a short time, as apparently was Gonnagle). Like Ivan Karamazov, "I'd give God back the entrance ticket".  As it is, I remain a quiet atheist with a small 'a'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hello Gonners,

I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'fundamental Atheist', but if it's what I think, I'd agree with the Prof "There certainly aren't any on here." The atheists I find on here are quite able to distinguish between poetic narrative, philosophical meditation and supposed and real history (Yes, the Bible does contain some of that, since the text has been corroborated by archaelogy). The greater part of the Bible's 'history' is probably fabricated though, for reasons I won't go into here.
I take issue with the Prof over the question of Myth, though, since he seems to take the word as simply meaning 'something untrue'. I accept, along with Karen Armstrong, that myth can sometimes impart deeper truths than any literal surface reading. But even this presents problems (perhaps we need a completely new thread on this). Let me take one obvious example: Genesis chapter 1 and the "Creation Days".  Biblical literalists take these as being 24 days as per now. Now the style of the chapter is quite poetic, which might lead thinking Christians and atheists to speculate that the original writer never intended the word "Day" to be taken literally.

That's where the problem starts. We can't possibly know for sure what was in the original writer's head at the time. However, scholars have long identified this writer as the same old bore who wrote Leviticus (The Priestly writer), and this chap was absolutely obsessed with precise time intervals, hours, days and years, and much more anally retentive stuff besides. So perhaps he did mean the word  "Day" to be taken literally here. He was reputedly of course 'inspired by God', and if so, he was wrong

Back to the Necessary Entity - has he become a Christian yet?

I take it you are still waiting and haven't settled for"The Kalam doesn't prove God"(Who said it did?).

Given that a counter argument has already been put up on here namely "Surely mankind is too wee" for something as grand as God to worry about, let's start with that. Why does that necessarily follow?

[Gonnagle]

Hello Gonners,

I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'fundamental Atheist', but if it's what I think, I'd agree with the Prof "There certainly aren't any on here." The atheists I find on here are quite able to distinguish between poetic narrative, philosophical meditation and supposed and real history (Yes, the Bible does contain some of that, since the text has been corroborated by archaelogy). The greater part of the Bible's 'history' is probably fabricated though, for reasons I won't go into here.
I take issue with the Prof over the question of Myth, though, since he seems to take the word as simply meaning 'something untrue'. I accept, along with Karen Armstrong, that myth can sometimes impart deeper truths than any literal surface reading. But even this presents problems (perhaps we need a completely new thread on this). Let me take one obvious example: Genesis chapter 1 and the "Creation Days".  Biblical literalists take these as being 24 days as per now. Now the style of the chapter is quite poetic, which might lead thinking Christians and atheists to speculate that the original writer never intended the word "Day" to be taken literally.

That's where the problem starts. We can't possibly know for sure what was in the original writer's head at the time. However, scholars have long identified this writer as the same old bore who wrote Leviticus (The Priestly writer), and this chap was absolutely obsessed with precise time intervals, hours, days and years, and much more anally retentive stuff besides. So perhaps he did mean the word  "Day" to be taken literally here. He was reputedly of course 'inspired by God', and if so, he was wrong

Back to the Necessary Entity - has he become a Christian yet?

Dear Dicky,

Oh the first Atheist ( only because it annoys your typical atheist ) to mention the Saintly Karen, and it was this Dear lady who first put me wise to the fundamental Atheist and this forum is awash with fundamental Atheists.

And yes maybe we do need a new thread, but just a quick reply to your post, the only words in the first chapter of Genesis you need to focus on are , "and behold it was very good" not the time span, a day, a year, a century, a millennia, an aeon "And behold it was very good".

Also and to help you along I have just dug out Karens wonderful small book " In The Beginning, a new interpretation of Genesis" because Dear Dicky you are allowed to do that, The Holy Bible is a living breathing document.

Gonnagle.

Stand by Gonnagle for a broadside from the fundies, man the guns Gonnagle

PS: Me an anti theist Must have been in my blue period, hey I am always in my blue period, come on you Gers

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Dicky,

Oh the first Atheist ( only because it annoys your typical atheist ) to mention the Saintly Karen, and it was this Dear lady who first put me wise to the fundamental Atheist and this forum is awash with fundamental Atheists.

And yes maybe we do need a new thread, but just a quick reply to your post, the only words in the first chapter of Genesis you need to focus on are , "and behold it was very good" not the time span, a day, a year, a century, a millennia, an aeon "And behold it was very good".

Also and to help you along I have just dug out Karens wonderful small book " In The Beginning, a new interpretation of Genesis" because Dear Dicky you are allowed to do that, The Holy Bible is a living breathing document.

Gonnagle.

Stand by Gonnagle for a broadside from the fundies, man the guns Gonnagle

PS: Me an anti theist Must have been in my blue period, hey I am always in my blue period, come on you Gers

Dear Gonners,
I have read it (as I have most of her books).
"And God saw that it was good" Well, I see it as a bit of a Curate's Egg. "Look, how wonderful"  (Book of Job) - till you taste smell and see the rotten parts.

[Dicky Underpants]

BTW, Gonners, if you get to cursing God (as you admitted to doing at one time) that would make you pretty much anti-theist, I'd say.

[Stranger]

You bang on about logical incoherence and then say that spacetime is composed of points and the whole of spacetime is at each point......in time.e!!!

What!? How the fuck did you manage to read that into anything I said?

The problem is wanting spacetime to be both composed AND a singular entity.

I don't want that. However, as it appears to be a continuum, it's probably more like one thing than a composite. This just seems to be you pretending that you've posted something that would convince anybody that a 'necessary entity' cannot be a composite and then pretending that I'm claiming that the universe is the 'necessary entity'. Both are false.

I think you need to clear a mess here and get what you are trying to say in some kind of order.

In any case, an entity which is singular and is without parts or components was proposed by philosophers centuries ago.

And I should care about this because.....?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gonners,
I have read it (as I have most of her books).
"And God saw that it was good" Well, I see it as a bit if a Curate's Egg. "Look, how wonderful"  (Book of Job) - till you taste smell and see the rotten parts.

Dear Dicky,

Curates egg! very drool And Karen is not a fan either of the book of Job, anyway where were we, oh yes, fundamental Atheist ( or atheist, same difference ) but then your post goes right back into fundamentalist atheist mode, nevermind eh!

Gonnagle.

[Dicky Underpants]

I take it you are still waiting and haven't settled for"The Kalam doesn't prove God"(Who said it did?).

Given that a counter argument has already been put up on here namely "Surely mankind is too wee" for something as grand as God to worry about, let's start with that. Why does that necessarily follow?

Misrepresentation of what the Prof was saying. Don't see the relevance of your first sentence to the post you were replying to.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Dicky,

Curates egg! very drool And Karen is not a fan either of the book of Job, anyway where were we, oh yes, fundamental Atheist ( or atheist, same difference ) but then your post goes right back into fundamentalist atheist mode, nevermind eh!

Gonnagle.

I'm sure your peculiar definitions mean something to you and make you happy. Pity the rest of us would like a little greater clarity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What!? How the fuck did you manage to read that into anything I said?

I don't want that. However, as it appears to be a continuum, it's probably more like one thing than a composite. This just seems to be you pretending that you've posted something that would convince anybody that a 'necessary entity' cannot be a composite and then pretending that I'm claiming that the universe is the 'necessary entity'. Both are false.



And I should care about this because.....?

Doesn't the space time continuum merely mean that space and time are not separate entities. Your definition seems to point to a single thing rather than a range.

If all entities have something in common we come back to virtually the same issue. WHAT IS IT THAT ALL ENTITIES HAVE IN COMMON?

[Gonnagle]

I'm sure your peculiar definitions mean something to you and make you happy. Pity the rest of us would like a little greater clarity.

Dear Dicky,

My peculiar definition, not mine, it was Karen's  ( first name terms now, thinking of inviting her round for tea, lovely lady ) that lady just opened my eyes to a very simple truth, but then you have said you have read most of Karen's books, "The Case for God" the chapter is "Death of God" I suggest a re reading of this Chapter using that special tool that only Atheists are good at, Critical Thinking.

Now this is my peculiar definition, the fundamental Atheist reads the Bible just the same as the fundamental Christian, literally. The wonderful Karen Armstrong explains it a lot better than I can.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Now this is my peculiar definition, the fundamental Atheist reads the Bible just the same as the fundamental Christian, literally. The wonderful Karen Armstrong explains it a lot better than I can.

Gonnagle.

But there is a difference: the fundamental Christian may regard the Bible as being literally true whereas an atheist (I don't think there are fundamental atheists because not simply holding beliefs about Gods doesn't involve any real variations) won't see it as being documentary history in that some of the details in it are not remotely believable, plus its overall provenance is uncertain.

Some might see it as allegorical or poetic, I suppose, or an interesting document of middle-eastern societies in antiquity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But there is a difference: the fundamental Christian may regard the Bible as being literally true whereas an atheist (I don't think there are fundamental atheists because not simply holding beliefs about Gods doesn't involve any real variations) won't see it as being documentary history in that some of the details in it are not remotely believable, plus its overall provenance is uncertain.

Some might see it as allegorical or poetic, I suppose, or an interesting document of middle-eastern societies in antiquity.

Then they would be committing the fallacy of modernity.
They also need to be clear that there is a more accurate version of history and evidence it.

Getting all that from just lacking belief in God or gods seems a tall order.

[Stranger]

Doesn't the space time continuum merely mean that space and time are not separate entities.

That, and that it's 'analogue' rather than consisting of individual points. Associated with an uncountable infinity of points. Also known as continuum infinity, c = 2^ℵ_₀, where ℵ_₀ (aleph-0) is countable infinity, the cardinality ('size') of the set of natural numbers, ℕ = {0,1,2,3,...}.

Your definition seems to point to a single thing rather than a range.

The General relativity view is that it's like a four-dimensional 'object'.

If all entities have something in common we come back to virtually the same issue. WHAT IS IT THAT ALL ENTITIES HAVE IN COMMON?

Not sure what you're getting at. Existence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That, and that it's 'analogue' rather than consisting of individual points. Associated with an uncountable infinity of points. Also known as continuum infinity, c = 2^ℵ_₀, where ℵ_₀ (aleph-0) is countable infinity, the cardinality ('size') of the set of natural

Harambee bashem coquilion shakalak karaoke micordiati shibboleth Mani biltissiti onro canrol

The General relativity view is that it's like a four-dimensional 'object'.

And inescapably presented as a candidate for "Necessary entity"

[Gonnagle]

But there is a difference: the fundamental Christian may regard the Bible as being literally true whereas an atheist (I don't think there are fundamental atheists because not simply holding beliefs about Gods doesn't involve any real variations) won't see it as being documentary history in that some of the details in it are not remotely believable, plus its overall provenance is uncertain.

Some might see it as allegorical or poetic, I suppose, or an interesting document of middle-eastern societies in antiquity.

Dear Gordon, Important matters first, I hope you kind Sir are taking care of your good self❤️

Of course there is a difference! the fundamental Atheist does not believe in God but you are just the same as the fundamental Christian.

This forum proves it.

The fundamental Atheist have done exactly want the fundamental Christians have done, dug their heels in.

There's more, so much more, time for a coffee check my emails and see what's happening in the real world

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Gordon, Important matters first, I hope you kind Sir are taking care of your good self❤️

Of course there is a difference! the fundamental Atheist does not believe in God but you are just the same as the fundamental Christian.

This forum proves it.

The fundamental Atheist have done exactly want the fundamental Christians have done, dug their heels in.

There's more, so much more, time for a coffee check my emails and see what's happening in the real world

Gonnagle.

Are you saying here that your definition of a fundamental atheists is that they don't have a belief on God? So for you all atheists are fundamental atheists? Presumably then all theists who have a belief in god, are fundamental theists?

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course there is a difference! the fundamental Atheist does not believe in God ...

Surely some mistake Gonners - a person who does not believe in god is an atheist, not a fundamentalist atheist, let alone a fundamentalist Atheist (whatever that capitalisation means).

... but you are just the same as the fundamental Christian.

Nope, the point is the 'fundamentalist' part - it is typical to consider fundamentalist christians to be a sub-set of christians on the basis of their actions - e.g. Westboro Baptist church as an extreme. There is no-one on this MB who acts in a similar manner as those folk, nor can I think of anyone of an atheist persuasion who acts as the Westboro Baptist church people do on the basis of their atheism.

You wish to argue for an equivalence where none exists. Realistically the atheists here are best compared to a kindly and gentle vicar, who believes in god, but wouldn't have the arrogance to claim they know that god exists, who is happy to discuss the matter with others who clearly also wish to but wouldn't dream of forcing their views on others without that consent, and who wish merely to live their lives accordingly and without interference, but have no interesting in forcing their beliefs on others in terms of (for example) stopping them from engaging in their beliefs/lack of belief.

So if you are looking for a better term - how about 'mild-mannered atheists' - but always remember Henry the mild-mannered janitor!!

[Gonnagle]

Are you saying here that your definition of a fundamental atheists is that they don't have a belief on God? So for you all atheists are fundamental atheists? Presumably then all theists who have a belief in god, are fundamental theists?

Dear Sane,

No most definitely not, not all Atheists are fundamentalists, but I have to say regarding this forum, where was the thunder, where was the outcry when the good Prof mentioned typical atheist

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

And inescapably presented as a candidate for "Necessary entity"

Drivel. As I keep saying, I think the argument from contingency is total bullshit and the idea of a 'necessary entity' is incoherent nonsense.

[Gonnagle]

Surely some mistake Gonners - a person who does not believe in god is an atheist, not a fundamentalist atheist, let alone a fundamentalist Atheist (whatever that capitalisation means).
Nope, the point is the 'fundamentalist' part - it is typical to consider fundamentalist christians to be a sub-set of christians on the basis of their actions - e.g. Westboro Baptist church as an extreme. There is no-one on this MB who acts in a similar manner as those folk, nor can I think of anyone of an atheist persuasion who acts as the Westboro Baptist church people do on the basis of their atheism.

You wish to argue for an equivalence where none exists. Realistically the atheists here are best compared to a kindly and gentle vicar, who believes in god, but wouldn't have the arrogance to claim they know that god exists, who is happy to discuss the matter with others who clearly also wish to but wouldn't dream of forcing their views on others without that consent, and who wish merely to live their lives accordingly and without interference, but have no interesting in forcing their beliefs on others in terms of (for example) stopping them from engaging in their beliefs/lack of belief.

So if you are looking for a better term - how about 'mild-mannered atheists' - but always remember Henry the mild-mannered janitor!!

Dear Prof,
I think I have answered your post by replying to Sanes, but there you go again, strawman, mentioning the worst case, I am not equating the fundamental Atheist on this forum to Westboro.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

No most definitely not, not all Atheists are fundamentalists, but I have to say regarding this forum, where was the thunder, where was the outcry when the good Prof mentioned typical atheist

Gonnagle.

where is the thunder in my post?